语言教学|普渡大学写作教学系列Subject-Specific Writing15-Professional Writing15

提示：点击上方"英语写作教学与研究"免费关注哦

征稿：二语写作

Subject-Specific Writing 15 - Professional, Technical Writing 15

13、Grant Writing

（6）Grant Writing in the Sciences: Planning

Plan Your Project

Before writing, plan your project timeline and objectives. Questions to ask include: 1) What do you seek to achieve through your research?; 2) What are the unique contributions this project is making to your field?; 3) What are the major steps to project completion?; and 4) Who will be involved in the project?

It is common to conduct a preliminary, or pilot, study to establish the feasibility of their project. A preliminary study is generally a smaller-scale version of the experiment that 1) provides the opportunity to test methods, equipment, and other aspects of a project before beginning it officially, 2) allows researchers to address errors and adjust research methods in a lower-stakes environment, and 3) provides a basis from which to extrapolate logistical and financial estimates. Importantly, these preliminary results can persuade funders of the viability of the project, as they demonstrate that the researcher can conduct the study and has already identified and addressed possible shortcomings of the proposed research.

Locate Funding Opportunities

Research grants come from a range of organizations, including universities, private foundations, corporations, and, especially common in the sciences, government agencies. In this last category, common sources of funding are the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) (for detailed suggestions on the application processes for NIH and NSF, see pp. 49-281 of Writing Successful Grant Proposals from the Top down and Bottom Up). Meanwhile, universities often provide funds for their own faculty members, especially early-career researchers (Sternberg 6).

To locate additional funding opportunities, consult with an experienced colleague for suggestions, as well as refer to www.grants.gov and its searchable database of government grants.

As you research grant opportunities, consider the following:

• Can you meet all of the application requirements, including the deadlines?

• What specific information do the reviewers require?

• What are the most important things to include about yourself/your research team and your project?

• If you are an assistant faculty member, have you taken advantage of opportunities specifically targeted at young/early researchers?

Determine Funder’s Requirements

Read and follow the instructions closely and create a checklist of the funder’s requirements. These may include the following; however, funding agency requirements vary widely so always follow the agency’s instructions carefully, as violations of instructions can lead funders to reject applications without reviewing them further (Levenson 38).

Cover Letter

Some agencies ask for a cover letter in which the investigator can request that reviewers with specific expertise evaluate the application. These letters can help the agency board or distribution committee know how your application would be best evaluated. The cover letter should be concise and professional. Note: Some granting agencies first require a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) before inviting a full proposal. Others welcome phone calls or e-mails.

Biosketch/Qualifications

The biosketch should describe the investigator(s)’ relevant credentials, including training and recent publications. This section provides evidence of the qualifications needed to successfully complete the proposed research and publish on the results.

Specific Aims

The Specific Aims section covers the major points of the project. It also can serve as a framework for developing the rest of the proposal, and as a project summary that will refresh the reviewers’ memory before they score the proposal. Specific Aims are sometimes organized in four parts: (1) general goal/significance, (2) theoretical framework/model, (3) hypotheses and (4) tests of the hypotheses.

A common weakness of grant proposals is the failure to identify a hypothesis, a new idea that can be tested experimentally and results in a rigorous and focused project. As Ogden and Goldberg explain, “to set a goal of ‘understanding the function of the vitronectin receptor on a retinal pigment epithelial cell” is much weaker than to hypothesize specific functions for the receptor (mechanisms) and then to suggest experiments to test the hypotheses” (26). The latter example states a specific goal and shows that the investigator has a clear concept of what he or she is looking for in their data, which the former, according to Ogden and Goldberg, sounds like a “fishing expedition” (26).

Research Design and Methods

In short, the research design is the “what” of the study, while the methods are the “how.” In other words, the research design describes the logical sequence of procedures and the methods section describes those procedures with as much detail as possible. The research design and methods sections should be carefully separated so that the reviewer has the option of scanning the research design without having to read through the more minute details of the experiment.

（7）Grant Writing in the Sciences: Writing

Writing Your Grant Proposal

After you have located a funding opportunity, planned your project, and outlined your grant proposal, it’s time to start writing. You may want to first read a few sample grants to better understand the content, tone, and style of successful proposals. Sample grants are often available on the funder’s site and include annotations about the proposals’ strengths and weaknesses.

Remember these key guidelines as you develop your proposal:

Address Experts and Non-Experts

Each of the reviewers should understand your project on a first read, even if they lack expertise in your sub-field. Because funding agencies consider many applications and have a limited amount of grant money, they give preference to projects that have clear aims and methods. Therefore, explain terms that might be unfamiliar to an educated but non-expert audience and avoid excessive use of jargon. The most successful proposals “are written for readers who are scientists but are unfamiliar with the particular article. The prose is kept simple, specialized words and abbreviations are avoided, and every page has at least one diagram or figure. A well-written proposal is written to communicate with all the reviewers, not just those with expertise in the field” (Ogden and Goldberg 21).

While you will likely need to employ specialized terminology in the research methods section in order to provide adequate detail, tailor your other sections to a wider audience. This ensures that all reviewers understand the significance of your proposed study.

Emphasize Actions and Major Steps

The steps involved in the research, and who will be completing them, need to be clear to your reviewers on a first read. To accomplish this, use active voice, which emphasizes who or what is doing the important action in the sentence. To turn passive voice into active voice, ask “What (or what) is doing the action in the sentence?” For more information see our OWL resources on active and passive voice.

Below is a passage from a successful NIH grant application that makes appropriate use of active voice (bold) and passive voice (italics).

In the next funding period we will further dissect the mechanism of protein import and initially focus on the apicoplast ERAD system. We hypothesize that Cdc48AP and more specifically its ATPase activity serves as the driving force of the translocation machine. This hypothesis predicts Cdc48AP to be essential for apicoplast protein import. To test this we will construct a conditional mutant […] Unfortunately however, Cdc48AP is not covered in our cosmid collection and initial attempts with small plasmid-based constructs were unsuccessful.

In this passage, active voice clarifies the researchers’ actions and the hypothesis’ functions. Note, however, that this author does use passive voice sparingly in order to highlight Cd48AP as the subject of the final sentence.

Another barrier to clarity is overuse of nominalization, or turning verbs (actions) into nouns. Nominalization, like passive voice, can add wordiness and often hides the most important actions from the reader.

For example:

Action	Nominalization
to analyze	analysis
to investigate	investigation
to understand	understanding

In the sample grant discussed above, for example, the phrase “We hypothesize that” would be “Our hypothesis is that,” consequently adding unnecessary verbiage to the sentence.

Use Diagrams or Other Visuals

Diagrams are useful to cut down on length and reduce verbiage, as well as illustrate complex relationships that may be difficult to clarify in writing alone. The most effective ones are understandable without the reviewer having to refer to the corresponding caption/legend. When incorporating diagrams, remember to follow the funder’s formatting requirements.

The Writing Process: Successfully Submitting your Grant

Grant writing requires a significant investment of time for planning, writing, and revising. Below are a few suggestions to help you submit your grant on deadline, many of which apply to other types of academic writing.

• Schedule adequate time for writing and revision, asking multiple readers to review your work.

• Make a grid or a spreadsheet with key deadlines for yourself and/or your team, and hold each other accountable to them.

• Develop a style sheet for your team that outlines agreed upon usage of terminology, acronyms, hyphenated compound adjectives, or other frequently used words or phrases.

• Write faithfully for at least 30 minutes a day.

• Schedule writing time for yourself and show up to it like a job; resist scheduling meetings or other commitments during this time.

• Ask a mentor who is knowledgeable about the field to review your writing.

• Submit your application early to avoid last-minute delays or technical problems with the online submission.

What Happens Next?

Unfortunately, very few proposals are funded initially (some NIH institutes, for example, fund less than 10% of submissions). Those proposals rejected in the first round are often revised and resubmitted. When researchers find themselves in this situation, the most important thing they can do is read the reviews carefully and revise their application accordingly and as quickly as possible. At this point, it is generally helpful to show the reviews to a colleague who is well-versed in grant writing.

WORKS CITED

Levenson, Robert W. “Mistakes that Grant Proposers Make.” Writing Successful Grant

Proposals from the Top Down and Bottom Up. Ed. Robert J. Steinberg. Los Angeles,

CA: Sage, 2014. 37-48. Print.

Ogden, Thomas E. and Israel A. Goldberg. Research Proposals: A guide to Success 3rd ed.

Oxford: Academic Press, 2002. Print.

Reif-Lehrer, Liane. Grant Application Writer’s Handbook. 4th ed. Sudsbury, MA: Jones and

Bartlett Publisher, 2005. Print.

Sternberg, Robert J. “Securing a Research Grant.” Writing Successful Grant Proposals from

the Top Down and Bottom Up. Ed. Robert J. Steinberg. Los Angeles, CA: Sage,

2014. 3-24. Print.

Striepen, Boris. “Biology of the Apicomplexan Plastid.” National Institute of Allergies and

Diseases Sample Grant Application. 5 Mar 2010. Web. 14 Dec 2014.

 《二语写作》正在征稿，欢迎国内外专家、学者和广大外语教师及研究者扫码入群赐稿！（详情见最后一条推送）

精彩回顾